| Four Terms Fallacy |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Invalid Form
>
Four Terms Fallacy
|
Four Terms Fallacy / Quaternio TerminorumThe four terms fallacy is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The Four Terms Fallacy / Quaternio Terminorum occurs when a fourth term is introduced into a formal syllogism. This can also happen in informal logic, but it is harder to detect. If we think of a categorical syllogism, there must be three, and only three, terms. They must be unambiguous. The form is something like this: “All S are P. All S are M. All S are P.” Note that there are only three terms; S, P, and M. If the fallacy is committed, a fourth term is introduced. This is often done through equivocation. Examples of the Four Terms Fallacy / Quaternio Terminorum“Nothing is more important than love. Crackers and cheese is better than nothing. Crackers and cheese is better than love.” That was easy, so it’s simple to see what happened. The word, “nothing,” has two meanings, so it introduces the fourth term. Love has several meanings and could fall into the same trap. “Love fulfills all the Commandments. I want to love you tonight [They are not married.]. I want to fulfill all the Commandments tonight.” Actually, the second meaning of love doesn’t even have an overlap with the first meaning of love as the two are used in these statements. This is actually a common mistake with the word, “love,” though a syllogism is seldom used, and the logic is usually covered with innuendo or unstated. “Science is observation. Evolution is observed. Therefore, Evolution is science.” It sounds good on the surface, and the logical form actually looks good. But let’s examine the reasoning: “Science is observation. Evolution [meaning any changes from generation to generation] is observed. Therefore, Evolution [meaning changes between families of living things such as felidea (cats), rodentia (rodents)] is science.” Now, we can see that it doesn’t make any sense. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionFormally Correct Fallacy Affirming the Consequent Commutation of Conditionals Affirming a Disjunct Denying the Antecedent Illicit Process Illicit Major Illicit Minor Invalid form using All Invalid form using \"Some\" Unwarranted Contrast Denying a Conjunct Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises Illicit Affirmative Existential Instantiation Exclusive Premises Fallacy of Four Terms Fallacy of Necessity Fallacy of False Conversion Illicit Contraposition Hooded Man Fallacy Confusing \"if\" with \"if and only if\" Improper Transposition Invalid form using \"OR\" Confusion of \"Necessary\" with a \"Sufficient\" Condition Galileo Argument (Formal) Recently Viewed |
